Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

No, it's just needless jargon.

Click to expand...

Tell that to someone who's been given $100.00, then later the giver wants it back.

He is not legally entitled to have it back.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Why is it wrong for you use the phrase "the moon reflects light from the sun"?

Click to expand...

I used to think the moon absorbed the light, then re-emitted it.

It does -- as infrared light -- but that's not moonlight, per se.

Albeit, it is a good example of the moon giving her own light.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Why do you feel the need to bring up, as you say in #906, a legal distinction?

Click to expand...

To add another angle to those who -- (like you did in that post) -- say that the moon cannot own light.

AV1611VET said:

Tell that to someone who's been given $100.00, then later the giver wants it back.

He is not legally entitled to have it back.

Click to expand...

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the moon reflecting light.

AV1611VET said:

I used to think the moon absorbed the light, then re-emitted it.

It does -- as infrared light -- but that's not moonlight, per se.

Albeit, it is a good example of the moon giving her own light.

Click to expand...

Nice. Didn't answer my question:
Why is it wrong for you use the phrase "the moon reflects light from the sun"?

AV1611VET said:

To add another angle to those who -- (like you did in that post) -- say that the moon cannot own light.

Click to expand...

Nice backhanded insult but that still makes no sense: why do you need to bring anything legal into a discussion about the moon and light? Where does legality come into it?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the moon reflecting light.



Nice. Didn't answer my question:
Why is it wrong for you use the phrase "the moon reflects light from the sun"?



Nice backhanded insult but that still makes no sense: why do you need to bring anything legal into a discussion about the moon and light? Where does legality come into it?

Click to expand...

Mamma mia.

I give up.

AV1611VET said:

Mamma mia.

I give up.

Click to expand...

I just want to know why you felt the need to include a legal distinction in this whole mess of a thread? Why? What was the point?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I just want to know why you felt the need to include a legal distinction in this whole mess of a thread? Why? What was the point?

Click to expand...

I've already answered that.

(You're welcome.)

AV1611VET said:

I've already answered that.

(You're welcome.)

Click to expand...

But no one said anything the moon OWNING light. We're talking about the moon generating it's own light. (Wow, that sounds positively Marxist. YIKES)
Words have meanings and if you use the wrong words in an attempt to sound smart and people get confused by what you say, you've got no-one to blame but yourself.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

But no one said anything the moon OWNING light.

Click to expand...

They have now.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

We're talking about the moon generating it's own light.

Click to expand...

Um ... you might be.

But leave me out of that, please.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

(Wow, that sounds positively Marxist. YIKES)

Click to expand...

If you say so.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Words have meanings ...

Click to expand...

And entries in dictionaries.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

... and if you use the wrong words in an attempt to sound smart and people get confused by what you say, you've got no-one to blame but yourself.

Click to expand...

Cool.

AV1611VET said:

They have now.



Um ... you might be.

But leave me out of that, please.



If you say so.



And entries in dictionaries.



Cool.

Click to expand...

Your maturity knows no bounds...

AV1611VET said:

It is also obedient.

Jeremiah 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

If God so ordained it, that's what it does.

I don't care if it's a ball of rock, or a toothpick.

It does what it's told to do.

Click to expand...

Isaiah 13:10
For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light. The rising sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light.

Yes, the moon does as God created it. That scripture shows that the moon has no light of it's own.
When the sun is darkened then the moon does not, can not independently give its light. When the sun's light goes out, all other cosmic lights existing around it also go out because they all have no light of their own.

The scripture doesn't anywhere say that the moon is 'equal to the sun only shining with less wattage that it has'. Observation and science prove this scripture interpretation to be accurate.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Your maturity knows no bounds...

Click to expand...

I think it would take an enornous talent to fake being so misaligned from topics, context, semantics and reality that the simpler explanation may well be the correct one, in which case we are likely the more foolish for responding to it.

d taylor said:

driewerf said:

Well, if science fails so hard at explaining "god's creation", here is a very easy and unambiguous test: predict the next solar eclips wihout using any fruit of science. Since science fails so hard, the biblical method must be much more accurate than the scientific one "emeyerite"?

Click to expand...

All past Time JB Dimbleby

Click to expand...

Instead of deflecting, you could have openly said that science is better at predicting solar eclipses than the biblical method. The bible wouldn't have gained any extra credibility, but at least YOU wouldn't have created the impression of being a coward.

Ophiolite said:

I think it would take an enornous talent to fake being so misaligned from topics, context, semantics and reality that the simpler explanation may well be the correct one, in which case we are likely the more foolish for responding to it.

Click to expand...

" likely" ?

Estrid said:

" likely" ?

Click to expand...

It's quaint application of rhetorical understatement, so beloved by the inhabitants of the British Isles.

Ophiolite said:

It's quaint application of rhetorical understatement, so beloved by the inhabitants of the British Isles.

Click to expand...

Ah so desu ka

driewerf said:

Instead of deflecting, you could have openly said that science is better at predicting solar eclipses than the biblical method. The bible wouldn't have gained any extra credibility, but at least YOU wouldn't have created the impression of being a coward.

Click to expand...

You may think of me as being a coward (which is fine with me), but at least i am not an unbeliever. As for gaining credibility i could care less about having any credibility among science and people who hold to science over The Bible in the area of God;s creation.
Actually if i am receiving credibility among science, then i know i am going down the wrong path of believing deceptions.

The moon is not self-luminous.

Does that help? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

d taylor said:

Actually if i am receiving credibility among science, then i know i am going down the wrong path of believing deceptions.

Click to expand...

If you're looking for a set of Biblical standards to use, here you go:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

d taylor said:

-

​

Actually if i am receiving credibility among science, then i know i am going down the wrong path of believing deceptions.

Click to expand...

Good news. You have absolutely nothing to worry about in that regard.

Ophiolite said:

Good news. You have absolutely nothing to worry about in that regard.

Click to expand...

Thanks to the likeness of those like Frances Kelsey, that's true.

Ophiolite said:

It's quaint application of rhetorical understatement, so beloved by the inhabitants of the British Isles.

Click to expand...

I write like that all the time. It's the way I was trained and I've never even been to the British Isles. (I flew overhead a couple times.)